Recent posts by issendorf on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

There are almost half-a-million school buses in the United States that carry 25 million kids to school.

Are we talking about Detroit or are we talking about the United States? Make up your mind.

Her school voucher is valued at $10,000 per school year. It’s a use-it-or-lose-it system, so she looks for a school that is as close to $10K without going over. The schools she and her child prefer are $20,000 a year… way out of her price range… and there are some really cheap schools for $8,000 a year but don’t have any after-school programs or offer school lunches… but they’re close.

Is the $8,000 school better or worse than the shitty urban school she’d otherwise be forced to send her kids? If yes, then her kids are better off with vouchers even if they can’t get the absolute dream. It’s not an all-or-nothing situation; improvement is improvement – not being able to get every kid into the top prep school isn’t a reason to scrap the program.

Where do you think all of the poorest inner-city families are going to send their kids?

If they have vouchers or there are charter schools nearby, they’ll send them there since they’ll almost assuredly be better.

Public schools have reputations based largely on their neighborhoods and provincial characteristics than their academic performance, but that’s not the really the issue. The issue here is that public education (grade-, middle-, high-school, and community colleges) would be pitted against schools that have marketing budgets… that schools would NOT be promoting their academic potential but instead whatever potential that their market specialty was.

Not sure what you’re talking about but public schools brag and market their test scores all the time if they’re good. If school choice was permitted universally, that information would be even more prevalent, allowing parents to avoid shit schools.

Public schools are better than private schools… they teach better. Kids in public school out-perform kids in private schools academically.

Some private schools are better than their public school peers – that’s just a fact. If a public school in a certain city is better than the private school? The parents will send their kids to the public school! School choice solves literally all these phantom issues you’re imaging.

What does matter is that the reason this is an issue for voters (when it shouldn’t be) is so that evangelical families can send their kids to non-evolution, non-sex-education schools that teach about the healing power of Christ on the tax-payer’s dime.

So finding policies that improve the quality of education that children receive shouldn’t be an issue for voters?

What do you mean?

Inner city schools don’t provide quality education; therefore, additional schools, whether they be public charters or private institutions accessible via vouchers are needed if the end goal is to give kids the best education possible.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

Issendorf, you refuted my viewpoints on school vouchers but didn’t substantiate them. Please elaborate (at least a little). I’m curious.

Charter schools won’t eviscerate inner-city school budgets, they won’t accelerate crumbling infrastructure nor will they “fundamentally change how schools operate.”

The first two are simply false; the third is just a lie pushed out by the teachers union.

Enter school vouchers and now I can send my child to any school that will take him/her. The private school may or may not supply transportation. That could be a significant factor in our decision. This would manifest in many areas as a defacto racial segregation.

The last time I checked, the city of Detroit (working with the analogy you’re a single mother living near downtown Detroit) has buses. Or is that transportation not good enough?

The school voucher may or may not pay the full amount of the private school’s tuition. As a poor family we would still be shopping for schools that we could afford. This is an economic segregation.

This is actually the opposite of economic segregation – you’re making services that were previously only available for the well-off an option for poorer families. The playing field for poor children and rich children is more level.

We would need to choose a school not for its ability to teach but rather for its prestige. This is a cultural segregation.

Schools gain prestige largely based on their ability to teach. That sort of the idea behind school choice – allow to students to go to the good schools rather than forcing them to attend the bad ones.

Schools will have more segregation… racial segregation… religious segregation… intellectual segregation. Schools will no longer expose children to the wide community but instead expose the children to other children that come from families like their own.
There has been zero evidence of improved student performance in areas that offer vouchers.

This is mostly true, although there hasn’t been a wealth of studies done on the performance of vouchers, although the general conclusion now seems to be that while they don’t offer improved student performance, they also don’t deter student performance either. That said, if I’m a parent, I at least want to have the option available; more choice is always better than a lack of a choice.

Also, funding a second school system is redundant and halves any economies of scale that a single public school system can supply. By increasing the costs of education, it will diminish an already struggling system. It just doesn’t make sense all around.

Hardly redundant since the public schools are incapable of offering a quality education in many urban areas.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

Charter school vouchers will impact our communities in lots of ways. While affording families with greater educational liberties, it will eviscerate inner-city school budgets. It will compound a failing infrastructure and reinforce a cycle of white-flight and gentrification.

None of this is true, but whatever.

The incentive for schools won’t be to provide education but rather to provide good consumer value. School vouchers threaten to fundamentally change the reason why schools exist. The problem with public education has more to do with geography and transportation—and the associated funding—than it does with “parental choice.”

None of this is true either.

School vouchers are promoted as a way for parents to decide where to send their kids, but how do vouchers improve education exactly?

By allowing poor, under-privileged children the opportunity to attend a comparatively better private school that they could otherwise never be able to afford.


YOU are most definitely NOT “dumb”.

I feel like we’re having a moment karma.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOL
To be fair, he did say he’d be happy either way … so, why not BOTH?

False alarm!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

Dumb (intelligence assessment) isn’t the same as ignorant (assessment of easily available information) …. at least for me.

Out of curiousity, am I dumb or ignorant for thinking liberalism is fucking moronic? No wrong answers here – whichever one you choose will highly amuse me.

After answering that, could you also explain how expanding charter schools, school choice and voucher programs, in addition to doing away with tenure for high school and elementary school teachers that does literally nothing to improve education performance, is part of my master plan to keep the plebs stupid (since that’s apparently the only reason I could support those programs). Thanks!

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Trump. No, not cards.

You do realize a library doesn’t give any revenue back and that a sports stadium does don’t you?

Actually, public funding for sports stadiums is pretty much one of the only areas that economists of all stripes largely agree; subsidies for stadiums provide pretty much zero economic benefits – they’re pretty much purely corporate welfare.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Black Lives Matter

You’re essentially saying that the problem of racism can only be solved by Black people.

Oh, so like the immigration thread, you’re just trolling on this one too. Good to know I don’t have to waste my time crafting a response.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Black Lives Matter

When one claims that “all lives matter” it is blind to the reality that the deck is weighted against people of color in America.

When claiming that “all lives matter” is a slight against Blacks, you’re ignoring that Blacks are included in the sentiment that all lives matter.

It seems fair to point out that for hundreds of years the United States has been openly hostile to people of color, and have dictated what will and will not happen. Is there anger? Sure… but that should not negate the message and its vital importance to our long-term social goals. Should there NOT be anger?

You know who else experienced openly hostile behavior from the government for centuries? Asian Americans. Rather than sit around and bitching about how poorly their ancestors were treated (which they would have been absolutely justified in doing so), they moved forward by embracing education and a strong family structure and have, in my opinion, are in a much better position than whites, whether that be economically or educationally.

The fact of the matter is, even if you obtain equal justice for blacks, that’s not going to magically solve their plight. Urban schools will still suck, and they’ll be mired in that vicious circle until school choice, voucher programs and charter schools are embraced by inner-city liberals since they’re the ones in control of pretty much all of the urban blight in America.

Similarly, having a large number of children out of wedlock greatly reduces the chances of economic success – both for the parent as well as for the children. You can claim that’s anti-gay (par for the course for you), but the facts are the facts. Children from two parent households do much better than parents from one parent households. That’s a major problem in many black communities, and it’s something you’re not going to fix with a law. It has to be an internal change.
____________________________________

Also they ignore that 88% of black people murdered were killed by other black people.

#OnlySomeBlackLivesMatter

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Black Lives Matter

Okay…That one seems a little odd. Would it also be a violent statement in his eyes, if you said non-black lives matter? From his stance, it would seem so. An extremist of a different stripe perhaps? Only his own ethnicity matters.

It’s essentially a fringe movement at this point; when you’re yelling down Bernie Sanders – arguably the person running for President who has done the most (along with Rand Paul I’d argue) for equality in the criminal justice system – you lose a lot of legitimacy as a mainstream movement.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Black Lives Matter

The important takeaway from Black Lives Matter is that addressing these concerns is ALSO a white problem. It’s an everyone problem.

Except that isn’t what BLM is saying – they’re essentially saying it’s only a white problem. Sure, the criminal justice system overwhelmingly harms blacks and browns compared to whites. But it’s also true that black children are disproportionately born out of wedlock in single parents homes. That matters, and it isn’t the fault of white America. Similarly corruption in inner cities matters; Baltimore is overwhelmingly controlled by black bureaucrats, from the Mayor to the City Council to the Police. The idea that Freddie Gray’s murder is somehow caused by white privilege is absurd on so many levels.

I’m all for pointing out where society and the government has failed racial minorities, but I lose a lot of sympathy when pointing out the self-inflicted wounds is branded racist by the BLM movement and that saying “All lives matter” is somehow a violent statement.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Migrants In Europe

Case in point: You will break the law but it is unacceptable for others to do it.

It’s unacceptable for anyone to break the law, including me. It’s why I tend to try not to do so.

The derogatory characterization of illegal immigrants as “leeches” underscores your tendency to rely on stereotypes.

I’ve made it clear the only illegal immigrants I have any problem with are those who expect the government to help them and that sovereign governments have no obligation to take in illegal immigrants, nor should they compelled to do so.

You and Vika both are fond of doing this. Could you point to where I’ve introduced this idea?

“Do I think the logistics of accommodating immigrants safely is challenging? Sure. Who doesn’t? That’s not the point. The point is that the Sudan has been struggling since 1956 and is LARGELY a problem of Britain’s creation, so fuck England’s problems with what to do with Sudanese refugees. Figure it out and do the right thing… and quit fucking complaining that there aren’t enough bricks to build the houses for them.

Halfway through the first page – I can only imagine how many other instances you’ve repeated that point.

Issendorf, I suspect that comparing your viewpoints to Glenn Beck would be a compliment in your eyes. To me, it would be considered an insult.

Well it certainly seems more polite than openly calling me an immoral racist. So I guess that’s progress at the very least. And hey, you didn’t compare me to Ann Coulter, so it could certainly be worse!

Okay then, Karma, in what ways would these “camps” be like Indian Reservations?

Hopefully there are casinos. More locations where I can play blackjack is a vision I can live with.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Migrants In Europe

It’s okay for YOU to break the law and dodge a bullet, but it’s not okay for someone else because it’s illegal. Got it.

I never said it was okay that I trespassed. You did. I merely said that’s what I would do and then I would leave the premises, not stay there for decades leeching off of the owner’s land without his consent or knowledge.

Another point of hypocrisy: Issendorf and Vika have been very clear about their acceptance of legal immigration and their unacceptance of illegal immigration.

So it’s hypocritical to support a legal action and not support an illegal action?

If the principle constraint were capacity, then this distinction should be irrelevant… if Britain cannot physically hold the people, then immigration (in all cases) should be severely restricted… and the fact that it’s legal or illegal is moot.

That is sort of the the point of regulation immigration – only take in as many people as can be supported. Yet you seem perfectly to content to let everyone flood the borders, whether or not there’s the infrastructure exists to support them.


We cannot have people setting up shanty towns in wildlife protected areas (they’re free of human development for a reason, landfill sites, or contaminated brown land (toxin-filled ex-heavy industrial land). As such, keeping nomadic populations out of such sites is something many branches of national and local government have to do.

Really good point – I didn’t think it through entirely.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Migrants In Europe

My viewpoint, and one that is substantiated by ample evidence, is that immigration is a positive thing. It allows people to move around the world… for cultures and mind-share to propagate.

Immigration is a positive thing. Illegal immigration isn’t. Why you’re seemingly unable to grasp that distinction is mind boggling.

Issendorf, would want to characterize immigrants as poor, as if being poor where some kind of “opt in to laziness” program, speaks to your character as a human being.

This would make me look like a really awful person if I had actually characterized immigrants as such. Except I haven’t. I’ve characterized illegal immigrants as such and that’s who I have a problem. My sympathy for people who willingly and knowingly break the law is quite limited.

I suppose you would not trespass to get out of the way of a bullet because you’re just that kind of stand-up guy.

While I appreciate the compliment that I have the ability to dodge a moving bullet, I’m sorry to say I’m not quite that physically gifted. Now, assuming I did have that gift, then yes, I would trespass onto property to avoid the bullet. However, I would then preceed to leave said land and not force the owner of the land to feed me, cloth me, take me into his home, etc. etc. If an illegal immigrant wants to head to a country and live in the hills without the using of public services, then fine. But the minute you seek public assistance when you’re not even a citizen of the nation, that’s where I draw the line.

There are plenty of NGOs that seek to help the poor in warzones – it’s not a role of a national government.

Does Britain have the physical resources to handle all its immigration, legal or not? Of course it does. Will there be hardship as a result? Maybe. What kind of hardship? Who knows? It’s hard to say.

Why should legal residents of, say, London, be forced to take on hardships for illegal residents? Isn’t a nation’s primary priority to take care of its citizens? Wouldn’t knowingly sacrificing the welfare of its citizens for illegals essentially be a nation shirking its responsibilities to its citizenry?

Issendorf is about as morally reprehensible as anyone I can find here.

Someone has to take the bottom rung on your ladder of moral standards. I’m more than happy to shoulder the burden so that others won’t have to.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Migrants In Europe

Lately we’ve seen a spat of party leaders hurling personal insults at other party leaders (the conservatives and labour were very good at this in the run-up to the laqst election) but even that was attacking one another’s personal lives on and off television, as opposed to making such broad over-generalisations.

My favorite attack ad ever was the pictures of Miliband eating a bacon sandwich. I wish American attack ads were that adorable.

Congratulations Issendorf. You’re now considered to have exactly the same political views as Karma, Kasic, and myself. Enough so that you’re getting the exact same insults thrown at you for the exact same reasons. Who’da thunk that for people who disagree heavily on practically every issue, we were all the same political group?

I think the takeaway here is that pete is obviously a uniter, not a divider.


Namely, that some peoples’ lives are more important than others. That is the impression that I’ve gotten from things you’ve written.

I hate to burst your bubble, but some peoples’ lives are more important than others. You can argue whether that’s okay or not, but developed counties absolutely prioritize some lives over others.

Issendorf, you will probably NEVER understand why I would consider anyone that would think something like this, much less write it, a total jerk.

Is it because you think immigration is an overwhelming net-positive and you believe wealthy nations have an obligation to take in the world’s poor, regardless of the fact they actually have the infrastructure to handle them? Do I understand correctly?

Many of the immigrants that are migrating illegally are doing so to escape violence. These are people that often do not have the resources or infrastructure (or perhaps even the time) to seek asylum or legal paths to immigration.

This is a small minority, at least in the States. Most illegals here simply overstayed their work visas and didn’t return to their homeland. I’d imagine that’s a similar situation in the UK.

And just because you’re leaving a violent homeland doesn’t give you the right to ignore a nation’s borders. You can apply for refugee status – a nation should be under no obligation to take you in if it either doesn’t want to or is unable to provide adequate support.

so don’t go pointing your angry little fingers at me

Yeah, vika. Didn’t anyone ever tell you pointing at someone, especially with angry little fingers, is exceedingly rude?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Migrants In Europe

I made an edit above Issendorf. I think that’s actually what you meant to say, but if not let me know and I’ll amend it.

I think it’s a fair assessment of where I stand on the left becoming increasingly anti-speech.

What do you suppose has sparked this rabid line drawing in US populations?

I think it mostly goes to the fact that Americans are increasingly only getting news and analysis from partisan/ideological sources that agree with their held beliefs. They’re reading journalists and pundits who routinely throw out the slurs to the point that civil discourse is becoming a rarity. Look at the Iran deal – we have Mike Huckabee saying that the President is leading us to Holocaust II and the President saying his opponents are aligned with Iranian hardliners who shout “Death to America.” I can’t fathom a major-party Presidential candidate or the POTUS using that level of rhetoric 10-15+ years ago.

I do believe the left tries to silence dissent more often than the right mostly because grievance is a large part of the Democratic party’s platform. Whether it be unfair wages, unfair treatment towards LGBT, unfair treatment towards browns and blacks, unfair treatment towards women, it’s those perceived unfairnesses drive pretty much every liberal policy. If you’re against the liberal policies, it stands to reason you’re against fairness and against women, against gays, against blacks, etc.

Issendorf, I don’t agree with the right-wing position on immigration because I think it’s nationalist, racist, and xenophobic. If you believe that immigration is a problem on the scale that it is depicted in right-wing media, then I would consider you a nationalist, a racist, and an asshole.

I think illegal immigration is an issue, yes. If you followed the minimum wage thread at all, you saw the data of the number of Americans living in poverty. I’d rather focus on taking care of those people rather than have the U.S. serve as the world’s Salvation Army.

then I would consider you a nationalist, a racist, and an asshole.

Meh, I’ve been called worse.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Migrants In Europe

I’m starting to see where Issendorf was coming from,

: D

if there are more progressives who think like yourself Pete – labelling others as assholes and racists solely because they disagree with you. Maybe it’s a cultural problem in the US. I wouldn’t know; I’m not there often enough to judge these days.

Mostly a U.S. problem it seems. Liberals abroad, whether they be Canadian or European, tend to be much more open-minded and less likely to only brand someone xenophobic (in the case of immigration) when they’re actually, you know, xenophobic.

I personally find this way of describing the problem inhumane (at best) and racist (at worst).
This is a stupid conversation.

There’s only one person who is being stupid in this conversation, and it is neither vika nor is it karma.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Effects of Increasing Minimum Wage. Is it good or bad?

You’re missing an, “or defund it.”

“Defunding a program” is getting rid of it in budgetary terms.

Whether or not corporate McDonalds dictates the wages franchise workers make is irrelevant to their total profit. That they are making that profit means it is coming from somewhere, and that somewhere are the franchises mostly.

Corporate is making the money off of the backs of the franchises – these franchises aren’t rolling around in piles of money to pay for your higher minimum wage.

Plus rental, royalty, and assistance fees.

Plus those, which come from the franchises, which further reduces their ability to pay for higher costs of labor.

You don’t know what they’re assuming. I know some studied at least 40% increases though, or around up to $11-12 minimum wage. They still found negligible changes.

They explicitly stated that modest increases in the minimum wage would a small negative effect on employment. And an increase to $12 would be a 65.5% increase. That isn’t modest!

I went snooping for the numbers since you still don’t feel it necessary to source anything you say.

“You know how to google.”

What you’re saying is only true in a vacuum where businesses hold themselves to existing conditions and ways of doing things, refusing to change how they operate and compensate their workers.

I’ve consistently said that the higher minimum wage will lead to 1) more automated jobs 2) fewer hours and lost jobs and 3) higher costs for consumers. Obviously if the government mandated Wendy’s pay $15/hour that the restaurant chain wouldn’t cease to exist. They would raise prices, cut jobs and get iPads to fill in as needed. All of those results are, as you say, Wendy’s changing who they operate and compensate their (smaller number of) workers.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Effects of Increasing Minimum Wage. Is it good or bad?

You’re just being pedantic. My point stands.

I’m really not. You’re just fundamentally butchering the definition of “getting rid of a program.”

Somehow reality just doesn’t seem to want to agree with you. That money is coming from somewhere. It doesn’t magic itself into the pockets of the corporation.

We’ll go nice and slowly for you since the franchise model is still eluding your understanding.

Corporate. McDonalds. Doesn’t. Set. The. Wages. At. Local. Restaurants.

Corporate. McDonalds. Only. Employs. 12%. Of. American. Workers.

That money that McDonalds is getting comes from the stores largely – they get about 4% of the profits the franchises make.

Got it?

I don’t care what Warren Buffet says to be honest.

“I don’t care what the greatest investor and one of the best businessmen in the world thinks about how to manage a business.”

The scientific body behind them is what matters, and in this case, I’ve shown you numerous studies (and you’ve given me some too that say the same) say that minimum wage increase has a very small effect on jobs.

Those studies are still assuming a modest increase in the minimum wage. A modest increase in the minimum still hasn’t been proposed.

They seem to be doing pretty well with their 18% margins, higher franchise rent costs, and an EBITDA margin of 20-22%. But they just somehow can’t pay their workers a living wage.

Fine, I’ll play this game with you.

Wendy’s made $120m last year and has 34,500 hourly workers. Assuming 2,000 hours worked annually (overly simplistic I’ll admit but the point stands IMO), those obscene profits you’re imagining convert to $1.73 hourly raise per worker. You can massage the numbers a bit, but they don’t add up to the point you’re making.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Pedophiles, people like that

This is true for children, not anyone who is mature and of proper mental functioning.

I was under the impression that 1) adults do experience short-term effects of greater aggression (no significant long-term effects) and 2) children exposed to large amounts of violent media are more likely to be more aggressive as teens and adults than their peers – it’s very possible I’m just misremembering the studies I read back in the day.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Effects of Increasing Minimum Wage. Is it good or bad?

Jeb Bush wants to scale down medicare/medicaid, reduce welfare benefits/recipients and place more resitrctions on it, higher the age people can start receiving social security, and repeal the Affordable Care Act. As far as Republicans go he is more moderate and not really crazy.

Reduction in spending on welfare programs and reforming entitlements to increase their long-term solvency != “trying to get rid of or defund specific kinds” of welfare programs. Care to try again?

Scott Walker is basically for cutting everything. Education funds for public schools, defunding Planned Parenthood, the Affordable Care Act, and has said that he wants to make extensive changes in general to the budget (which we all know means cutting social programs and giving businesses tax breaks and benefits).

Hey, we found a program he’d cut! Except the ACA was supposed to provide health care coverage to low-income workers and there are countless of other agencies that perform women’s health services. Seems to me PP is largely redundant.

I do agree with you to an extent on the ACA – any Republican who clamors that we have to repeal Obamacare must have a replace solution. The current health care law isn’t the answer, but neither is the status quo that we had prior to its implementation.

If the business as a whole is making more from a variety of contributions, then people working in the company as a whole should see some of that increase.

And they have been. The report I linked earlier showed that low-skilled workers’ wages were increasing much more than their productivity levels.

The ones where the CEOs do get paid that much are the ones who have their employees on minimum wage and are very successful.

And I’ve told you repeatedly that those industries are based on the franchise model where the corporate entity has no control over the wages set. You can moan all you want about McDonalds profits and that they aren’t sharing enough with their workers. They don’t have the authority to mandate wages on their franchises and the franchises can’t afford that large of an increase in their labor costs.

The vast majority of studies disagree with you, but okay.

I doubt it’s a majority, let alone a vast one. And they disagree with Warren and me. Don’t leave him out.

You didn’t refute my point, like you haven’t done each time I’ve made a point you can’t argue. Whenever I say something you can’t argue against you try to mock me. I’ll take that as an indicator my reasoning isn’t wrong. It’s perfectly possible to redistribute the existing amount of money within a company without affecting profitability rates.

The entirity of my posts have been refuting your point that raising the minimum wage has costs and not “There isn’t any [harm].” I could repeat myself, but instead I would direct you to read Wendy’s Q2 earnings call. It’ll be a good learning experience for you to actually see how a business copes with higher labor costs rather than imaging how a business operates.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Pedophiles, people like that

I don’t think media of any sort causes people to act or hold specific views – whether it’s violence or sex in books, violence or sex on television, or violence and sex imagined in someone’s head. Fantasy and reality are distinctly separate from each other and those who can’t tell the two apart are already going to be causing trouble.

While I do agree that media isn’t the root cause of an action or a specific view, it certainly is a factor. As someone who adores horror films and dropped scores of hours into GTA games, I haven’t been transformed into a murdering monster (yet). However, the evidence is pretty overwhelming that consuming violent media does tend to make people more aggressive which in turn makes people are susceptible to violent urges more likely to act on them.

To your last sentence, technology is increasingly blurring the line between fantasy and reality. That line is only going to become increasingly difficult to define going forward.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Gay Marriage: A Great Loss for Moralism

I’ll leave this here without comment: Robot marriages.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Effects of Increasing Minimum Wage. Is it good or bad?

You know how to google. Type the candidates name in and click on the wiki. But this is all bullshitting on your end anyways because you know full well that Republicans are in general against many social programs.

They’re against waste and fraud in the social programs (based on you railing against them, I guess you’re pro-fraud). The fact that you haven’t been able to produce evidence (still) and forcing me to do your homework is laughable considering your catch phrase is essentially “Can you provide any sources?”

There’s just as little evidence for higher management having more productivity and you have no issues with them taking in the lion’s share of all the gains.

Higher management is responsible for implementing the technology that increases productivity.

A CEO does not need to be making 300 times the wages of their employees.

CEOs by and large don’t make 300 times the wages of their employees. The top CEOs make 300 times their workers. If you actually look at all CEOs, they make less than 4x the average worker. \

If you look at the top performers in any field, they’re going to make an obscene amount of money. That sort of goes with the territory of being the best in your field. I mean, look at Hillary Clinton. She’s obviously very good at giving speeches since she makes $300k doing a one-hour speech. That’s 20,000 times what someone making a $15 minimum wage would earn if you were wondering.

An increase to $15 covers a lot more people than the 3.6 million the BLS referenced. They’ll have more disposable income which they will spend and that will be good for the economy. The people who will be getting more money are those who can’t afford to buy commercial goods because they’re barely scraping by with basic necessities. This benefits businesses and workers.

I’ll leave you with the words of Warren Buffett: "I may wish to have all jobs pay at least $15 an hour, but that minimum would almost certainly reduce employment in a major way, crushing many workers possessing only basic skills. Smaller increases, though obviously welcome, will still leave many hardworking Americans mired in poverty.”

It’s not a solution; you should stop deluding yourself into thinking it is one.

The second reason is a statement on fairness, which I know you disdain.

Fairness isn’t an economic argument, it’s a moral argument. I’m consistently told by pro-choicers that my moral qualms are largely irrelevant when discussing abortion since it’s a medical procedure. If that’s the case, you should leave your moral arguments at home when discussing an economic procedure (or am I now allowed to talk about how fucked up the PP videos are when discussing abortion?).

There isn’t one. Jobs will barely be affected and companies will be forced to reallocate some of their funds to paying their workers more – they won’t simply fire them because they’re already hired due to the demand of their services. The sources I’ve cited go over how the redistribution occurs, whether it’s through company policy such as reducing waste or shifting wages from those earning more to those lower.

Good news everyone – there is a free lunch!

You should write up a paper and claim your Nobel Prize in economics. I hope you reference me for helping you make this discovery. Looking forward to seeing you in Stockholm!!!!

EDIT:

This benefits businesses and workers.

This is nonsensical. If it benefited businesses, they’d raise wages. Since they aren’t raising wages, it stands to reason it doesn’t actually benefit them (and as I’ve said frequently, it doesn’t really benefit workers either).

We’re the wealthiest country in the history of the world and a sixth of our people are in poverty?

As I’ve stated, those poverty figures omit about 97% of all welfare benefits those in poverty receive. The actual number of Americans living in poverty when factoring in government benefits is much lower.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Which candidate would you vote for so that he/she can run for president

So many coffee puns in that article…

I know! The authors deserves all of the Pulitzers, absolutely made my day.

I don’t think how late you enter matters.

Probably not, although there may some regulations with the FEC that make a later entry into the ring more challenging. The bigger issue for a guy like Schultz who has no political experience building a national campaign that can rival Clinton’s. He’s got the capital to do it, but it’d be a serious undertaking.

The bigger issue is whether he could get nominated for either party to be their candidate

If Trump, can run as a Republican (which he is no way an actual conservative), then Schultz would absolutely qualify as a Democrat. Hell, Sanders doesn’t even consider himself a Democrat, but he’s still running as one.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Which candidate would you vote for so that he/she can run for president

I’ve been seeing a lot of stories about a possible Howard SchultzCEO of Starbucks – possible run on Twitter and elsewhere. He’d be a super fascinating candidate and I’d love to see him run, although it seems pretty late in the game to get started (sort of the issue I see with Biden running).

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Effects of Increasing Minimum Wage. Is it good or bad?

I’m not going to link all 16 of them.

Got it. We have a claim for you that’s, how do you word it? Oh yeah, “pulled out of thin air.”

Income inequality is by definition an increase in the disparity between the highest paid workers and those lower than them. Productivity in the labor force has risen, due primarily to increased work hours and technological advancements. Want an article about it?

I completely agree with this, but there are two points that I’ve made that you haven’t really addressed:

1) There’s still no evidence that low-skilled workers are contributing to gains in productivity (no gains in productivity = no real economic reason for significantly higher wages)
2) There are a number of reasons, as the Times article points out, for stagnant wages. While I do agree that corporate greed is a factor in some instances, it’s not the sole cause, nor, I would argue, is it even the primary factor. It’s one small slice in a complex pie.

Why are you hyperfocusing on this 900k (a number that you pulled out of nowhere, as in unsourced)?

Because those are the ones earning at or below minimum wage and would presumably see the biggest gains from a minimum wage hike.

That number comes from the fact that 3.9% of hourly workers are on the minimum wage which equates to 3 million workers. 23% of minimum wage workers are at or below the poverty line. My calculator tells me that’s 690k workers who earn the minimum wage live in a household that’s in poverty. Apparently, I was using outdated data with the initial 900k estimate.

To be clear, I also never said raising minimum wage will end poverty.

I’m aware of that and certainly never intended to paint your argument as such. My contention has been there are much better programs that could be expanded to help poor workers that focusing on the minimum wage. My intentions are to focus on policies that help the poor since I’m earnestly concerned about large number of folks dependent on the government in order to survive. I’m unconvinced that the minimum wage is a tool that will actually provide meaningful assistance.